Here is Another quote i just found and yes, I am cursing myself for not knowing this one earlier. If anyone dares to make the lie that "All Atheism = Socialism" or that "Atheism always leads to Communism"; Just print this quote and let them squirm! From a socialist rag known as the "Workers' Republic", originally printed on 17 June 1899:

“But it is opposed to Religion,” constitutes the last words, the ultimate shift, of the supporters of capitalism, driven from every other line of defence but stubbornly refusing to yield. “Socialism is Atheism, and all Socialists are Atheists,” or “Your Socialism is but a fine name to cover your Atheism in its attack upon the Church;” all these phrases are so commonly heard in the course of every dispute upon the merits or demerits of the Socialist doctrine that we require no apology for introducing them here in order to point their illogical character. So far from it being true that Socialism and Atheism are synonymous terms, it is a curious and instructive fact that almost all the prominent propagandists of Freethought in our generation have been, and are, most determined enemies of Socialism. The late Charles Bradlaugh, in his time the most aggressive Freethinker in England, was to the last resolute and uncompromising in his hatred of Socialism; G.W. Foote, the present editor of the Freethinker, the national organ of English Secularism, is a bitter enemy of Socialism, and the late Colonel Bob Ingersoll, the chief apostle of Freethought doctrine in the United States, was well known as an apologist of capitalism." - James Connolly, "The New Evangel: Socialism and Religion. The Known and the Unknowable"

Clearly, even the socialists who are Atheists disagree with this creationist smear, and this was before the image of Socialism got tarnished with Lenin!

"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith

In the context of my blogpost i find this article to be extremely amusing. The thing is i'm not entirely sure what to do about this article. I've already debunked all these arguments about Hitler and Stalin on the League of Reason as most of you know so if i were to comment about this i would just be repeating myself. And yet i am so tempted to not leave it alone.

"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith

theyounghistorian77 wrote:I've already debunked all these arguments about Hitler and Stalin on the League of Reason as most of you know so if i were to comment about this i would just be repeating myself. And yet i am so tempted to not leave it alone.

If repeating myself was a problem, I would not have half the posts I do now. There are only so many arguments a creationist can make and I would assume that would be the same in your case. Thus, repeat away.

theyounghistorian77 wrote:I've already debunked all these arguments about Hitler and Stalin on the League of Reason as most of you know so if i were to comment about this i would just be repeating myself. And yet i am so tempted to not leave it alone.

If repeating myself was a problem, I would not have half the posts I do now. There are only so many arguments a creationist can make and I would assume that would be the same in your case. Thus, repeat away.

Well, OK. It's just that there's little for me to add. i'll ignore the part of Christopher Hitchens on MLK for the time being. I'm sure others can cover it. But let's focus on the parts that interest me:

Daily Mail wrote:In the latest edition of Prospect magazine, the philosopher A.C. Grayling writes another of his pieces in support of atheism. In it, he exhibits a deft sleight-of-hand which, viewed close-up and in slow-motion, looks more and more suspicious. For instance, he complains that ‘in England where 3 per cent of the population go regularly to services in the state-established Church, 26 bishops (plus a number of life peer ex-bishops) can sit in the House of Lords’.

It seems a fair point, but is it even accurate, let alone fair? There are currently 775 members of the House of Lords. Three per cent of 775 is 23.25. This means that, even by Grayling’s own demanding calculations of what constitutes an Anglican, the House of Lords has just two-and-three-quarter Bishops above its fair share. But Grayling is highly selective with his statistics, and only manages to whittle the percentage of Anglicans down to 3 per cent by defining as an Anglican someone who goes regularly to services. In fact, a recent survey showed that 22.2 per cent of people in the UK describe themselves as Anglican (and 59.3 per cent of people in England and Wales call themselves Christian)

Even from what is reported here, it doesn't look like to me that Grayling is claiming the only Anglicans in the Country are the ones that go to church and there is nothing to indicate in this article at least that Grayling did not take into account all those Anglicans that don't go to church every Sunday, those "Lapsed Anglicans" if that makes any sense. What i suspect is the author twisting Grayling's actual arguments to fit his own conclusions. And on a side are we implying that we really ought to have a PR system of religious representation in the House of Lords?

Daily Mail wrote:If Grayling demands church attendance as the measure of Christianity, then surely the equivalent should be required of atheists? Yet the British Humanist Association, of which Grayling is vice-president, has just 28,000 members — or a meagre 0.052 per cent of the UK population as a whole — and I doubt many of them are regular attenders.

False equivocation fallacy! Is the Humanist Association really the same thing as a religious organisation or denomination or sect Especially one that is backed up and supported by the state? And do not forget this misleading question of his stems of his Strawmanning of Grayling's original point

Daily Mail wrote:Elsewhere, Grayling’s footwork is even more deft. At one point, he counters those who point out that Hitler and Stalin were atheists by sighing ‘The usual replies have wearily to be given’, as though those who disagree with him are being pig-headedly dim-witted.

As opposed to a Pig-headed Daily Mail columnist?

Daily Mail wrote:Almost as an afterthought, he adds that ‘Incidentally, Hitler was not an atheist — “Gott mit uns” (God with us) said the legend on Wehrmacht belt buckles — and Stalin was educated in a seminary, where evidently he picked up a few tricks’.

It is true that Stalin was educated in a seminary, but that does not make him a Christian, any more than being confirmed as a teenager makes Dawkins a Christian, or living in my house makes our West Highland Terrier a human being.

In his book The Dictators, Richard Overy, the Professor of History at King’s College, London, writes: ‘It is sometimes argued that Stalin, a former seminary student, still harboured residual religious sentiment which might explain the periodic lapses in an otherwise unremitting campaign against the religious world view.

‘There is no evidence to support such a conclusion. Stalin remained a consistent advocate of the scientific and materialist base of all knowledge. His concessions to religion were tactical and opportunistic . . .’

So there we have it: Stalin WAS an atheist, or as Grayling’s colleague Richard Dawkins himself once conceded, ‘There seems no doubt that, as a matter of fact, Stalin was an atheist.’

Stalin was an Atheist, it's not exactly controversial. And in the context of what i have written on the blog i have to ask; "so what, exactly?"

And so, too, was Hitler.

Er, no he wasn't an Atheist! And even the Trevor-Roper translations of the Table talk which i have debunked elsewhere reveal him to be a believer in some form of God. Here, for example is Hitler trying to justify applying his psuedo-Darwinian beliefs onto human action, because in his Weltanschauung it is the way in which his God has designed the world:

"God does not act differently. He suddenly hurls the masses of humanity on to the Earth, and he leaves it to each one to work out his own salvation. Men dispossess one another, and one perceives that, at the end of it all, it is always the stronger who triumphs. Is that not the most reasonable order of things?" - Hitler, 23 Sept 1941 (According to the Trevor Roper Table talks)

This fails to mention the number of Mistranslations present in the Trevor-Roper Table talks. see the “German Studies Review, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Oct., 2003), pp. 561-576” for more details.

I had much of the German quoted on the LoR which revealed his actual conceptions of Christianity, but the change of site has messed it up, which is annoying!"

"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith

Makes point that the millions of deaths may be based on more complicated factors i.e. the example of the Ukrainian genocide rather than, militant atheists (who = communists) killing the religious which the film proposes.

theyounghistorian77 wrote:Here then is a rational explanation of one of history’s most monumental crimes without the invocation of Stalin’s “atheism” or “Militant Atheism”.

USSR Atheism stemmed from Marxist theory but in Lenin's own form, Marxist-Leninism.

Within Marxist Theory it is recognized that atheism is not equal to communism, evidenced with quotes from Marx in the Philosophical Manuscripts.

"But ...Lenin" - vague assertions to a difference between Lenin's conception of atheism and Marx's, yet they appear to me complementary. 1st quote of Lenin's mirrors the classic Marx quote regarding the opium of the people etc. The second quote distances liberals with socialists regarding the question of atheism, Lenin proposes not trying to educating people out of religion with bald propaganda (this is a practical extension of Marx's formulation of religion).

Then a jump back to Stalin and Authority " Simon Sebag Montefiore". And cult like behavior within Stalinism - "‘noble-blooded’ people", "Their Scriptures were the teachings of Marxism-Lenninism, regarded as a ‘scientific’ Truth.", etc. And anyone who has read 1984 will get the gist too.

Anyway, you have failed to demonstrate why Marxist Leninism is different from Marxism. As i have suggested the quotes you use appear to do the opposite. But maybe this is irrelevant and maybe it is simply Marxism for you that is in practice a cult or religious.

Also The reasons given as to why it is so are pretty weak they seem to be exclusively around Stalin, but perhaps you equate Stalinism with Leninism / Marxism, it is all the rage after all. And you need to evidence how for example the theory and philosophy of "Marxist- Leninism" leads to the phenomenon of being religious like . Plus some of the examples given are silly , for example mentioning Marxist classics in love letters -" Can we hold Moscow, Tell me as a bolshevik?’ as an 18th century Englishman might say, ‘Tell me as a Gentleman!’" last time i checked a gentleman was a social-status or attributed characteristic not a religion.

Also what then is conventional secularism ?

"The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil...there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy." Albert Einstein

PAB wrote:Makes point that the millions of deaths may be based on more complicated factors i.e. the example of the Ukrainian genocide rather than, militant atheists (who = communists) killing the religious which the film proposes.

The point was you do not need the invocation of Atheism as an "explain-all" for the crimes committed by the USSR

PAB wrote:USSR Atheism stemmed from Marxist theory but in Lenin's own form, Marxist-Leninism.

Marx's critiques are very different to most conventional atheist societal-critiques of religion.

PAB wrote:vague assertions to a difference between Lenin's conception of atheism and Marx's

Where did i do this? The line "Lenin had other ideas to the rest of us "bourgeois democrats"..." was a tongue in cheek reference to to a difference between Lenin's conception of atheism, and mine. Because Lenin would see me, for reasons that ought to be self evident because i do not subscribe to his ideology, as a "bourgeois democrat."

PAB wrote: Then a jump back to Stalin and Authority " Simon Sebag Montefiore". And cult like behavior within Stalinism - "‘noble-blooded’ people", "Their Scriptures were the teachings of Marxism-Lenninism, regarded as a ‘scientific’ Truth.", etc. And anyone who has read 1984 will get the gist too.

Conclusion: Marxist-Leninsm in practice can act like a religion

It was very Cultish and yes Marxism-Leninsm in practice can and does act like a religion.

PAB wrote:Anyway, you have failed to demonstrate why Marxist Leninism is different from Marxism.

On the front of religion there is none of great divergence between Marx and Lenin that we have seen in other areas that we have already discussed on these forums. You're stemming this from a misreading of the line that "Lenin had other ideas to the rest of us "bourgeois democrats""

PAB wrote:Also The reasons given as to why it is so are pretty weak they seem to be exclusively around Stalin, but perhaps you equate Stalinism with Leninism / Marxism,

I'll tell you this, I don't buy into the idea that to paraphrase "Lenin was the prudent and wise and well-intentioned founder of the form of so-called "socialism" in the USSR that Stalin then went on to corrupt." I have my reasons for doing so!

PAB wrote:Also The reasons given as to why it is so are pretty weak they seem to be exclusively around Stalin, but perhaps you equate Stalinism with Leninism / Marxism, it is all the rage after all. And you need to evidence how for example the theory and philosophy of "Marxist- Leninism" leads to the phenomenon of being religious like . Plus some of the examples given are silly , for example mentioning Marxist classics in love letters -" Can we hold Moscow, Tell me as a bolshevik?’ as an 18th century Englishman might say, ‘Tell me as a Gentleman!’" last time i checked a gentleman was a social-status or attributed characteristic not a religion.

Well nevermind the actual point of the passage which is that Stalin displayed a fanaticism or Quasi-fanaticism reminiscent of that displayed by extreme religious types. (the phrase "Semi-islamic" in reference of the zeal of the fundamentalists of that religion have) And who is to say that 18th century English Gentlemen weren't devoutly obsessed as much as a clergyman was to his faith by the things that interested them, being religion or otherwise? Of course it was not that it opposed religion and the concept of an afterlife. But in every other respect it Marxism-Leninism resembled a religion. It elevated it's greatest figures, usually the leaders, to a godlike status. And at the same time as this it was not uncommon to have Marx and Engels proclaimed as in effect, Prophets heralding the future dawn of a new age. Perhaps you missed Stalin's own observations, that his regime exhibited a "sort of military-religious order". Well given the way his regime acted i do believe there is good enough case to put weight upon his own words there

PAB wrote:Also what then is conventional secularism ?

Conventional secularism professes a neutrality when it comes to the state and questions of belief and conscience and also because of that very neutrality, conventional secularism guarantees the freedom of religious expression in public life whilst at the same time it does not create an established religion to be endorsed by the state. And contra the claims of the Fundamentalist religious types; conventional Secularism certainly does NOT create a "State-Atheism" that is then "rammed down everyone's throats" as if it were some kind of boiling oil. Parenthetically it should be noted it has been observed in polls that most Atheists oppose State-Atheism and on this point they are actually more consistent about religious freedoms than the religious Fundamentalists who wish to proclaim their religion as the religion endorsed by the state

"What about those on the opposite extreme of the religious belief continuum, atheists? They always oppose school prayer, but wouldn’t they like to have atheism taught if they could? I thus have asked atheists to respond to the following proposal:

"Suppose a law were passed requiring strenuous teaching in public schools against belief in God and religion. Beginning in kindergarten, all children would be taught that belief in God is unsupported by logic and science, and that traditional religions are based on unreliable scriptures and outdated principles. All children would eventually be encouraged to become atheists or agnostics. How would you react to such a law?"

This would seem to be “right down the atheists’ alley,” and you frequently hear fundamentalists say this is precisely what nonbelievers are ultimately trying to accomplish in their court challenges to school prayer. But 100% of a sample of Manitoba parents who were atheists said this would be a bad law; so did 70% of a sample of the active American atheists whose organizations often launch those court challenges. Atheists typically hold that religious beliefs/practice have no place in public schools, and that includes their own point of view. No double standard there." - Bob Altemeyer, "The Authoritarians"

"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith

Well nevermind the actual point of the passage which is that Stalin displayed a fanaticism or Quasi-fanaticism reminiscent of that displayed by extreme religious types. (the phrase "Semi-islamic" in reference of the zeal of the fundamentalists of that religion have) And who is to say that 18th century English Gentlemen weren't devoutly obsessed as much as a clergyman was to his faith by the things that interested them, being religion or otherwise? Of course it was not that it opposed religion and the concept of an afterlife. But in every other respect it Marxism-Leninism resembled a religion. It elevated it's greatest figures, usually the leaders, to a godlike status. And at the same time as this it was not uncommon to have Marx and Engels proclaimed as in effect, Prophets heralding the future dawn of a new age. Perhaps you missed Stalin's own observations, that his regime exhibited a "sort of military-religious order". Well given the way his regime acted i do believe there is good enough case to put weight upon his own words there

The reason i do not agree is regards the fact that i think you misrepresent Marxist-leninism with Stalinism and its effects. Your making a hasty generalisation . From my perspective it is not Marxism -Leninism that resembles a religion but its particular treatment under certain regimes and conditions that rendered it "cult -like". It must be remembered that Marxism and Leninism are a body of philosophical and political theories, in which Marxism is one of the fundamental pillar's of social science and Leninism is a branch of Marxism . In the similar way way quantum mechanics is a branch of physics. (And ill anticipate- there isn't some inherent cult like aspect regarding the name i.e. lenin-ism or marx-ism, we also use Darwinism, Darwinist, Newtonian, Freudian etc.).

[It could be said neo-liberalism is like a religion , when you have its proponents arguing that free trade and the markets will save everything with a unwavering faith in the invisible hand...... ]

This is why i stated that you needed to evidence how for example the theory and philosophy of "Marxist- Leninism" itself leads to the phenomenon of being religious like. Simply i disagree with your conclusion, Marxist- Leninism is not like a religion nor does it necessarily lead to cult like practices. But i would have agreed if you stated that within the soviet union marxist leninism became a cult like practice.

theyounghistorian77 wrote:Conventional secularism professes a neutrality when it comes to the state and questions of belief and conscience and also because of that very neutrality, conventional secularism guarantees the freedom of religious expression in public life whilst at the same time it does not create an established religion to be endorsed by the state. And contra the claims of the Fundamentalist religious types; conventional Secularism certainly does NOT create a "State-Atheism" that is then "rammed down everyone's throats" as if it were some kind of boiling oil. Parenthetically it should be noted it has been observed in polls that most Atheists oppose State-Atheism and on this point they are actually more consistent about religious freedoms than the religious Fundamentalists who wish to proclaim their religion as the religion endorsed by the state

"What about those on the opposite extreme of the religious belief continuum, atheists? They always oppose school prayer, but wouldn’t they like to have atheism taught if they could? I thus have asked atheists to respond to the following proposal:

"Suppose a law were passed requiring strenuous teaching in public schools against belief in God and religion. Beginning in kindergarten, all children would be taught that belief in God is unsupported by logic and science, and that traditional religions are based on unreliable scriptures and outdated principles. All children would eventually be encouraged to become atheists or agnostics. How would you react to such a law?"

This would seem to be “right down the atheists’ alley,” and you frequently hear fundamentalists say this is precisely what nonbelievers are ultimately trying to accomplish in their court challenges to school prayer. But 100% of a sample of Manitoba parents who were atheists said this would be a bad law; so did 70% of a sample of the active American atheists whose organizations often launch those court challenges. Atheists typically hold that religious beliefs/practice have no place in public schools, and that includes their own point of view. No double standard there." - Bob Altemeyer, "The Authoritarians"

I asked because you state "Marxist-Leninist atheism (Or the Marxist-Leninist variant of secularism if you must insist) is different to conventional atheist or secularist thinking" . Are you implying that Marxist-Leninism is therefore for a atheist state; as in suppressing religious beliefs and putting forward atheist ideas as described above ?

Your quote from Lenin ill re-quote:

“It is the duty of a Marxist to place the success of the strike movement above everything else, vigorously to counteract the division of the workers in this struggle into atheists and Christians, vigorously to oppose any such division. Atheist propaganda in such circumstances may be both unnecessary and harmful—not from the philistine fear of scaring away the backward sections, of losing a seat in the elections, and so on, but out of consideration for the real progress of the class struggle, which in the conditions of modern capitalist society will convert Christian workers to Social-Democracy and to atheism a hundred times better than bald atheist propaganda. [...] Why does religion retain its hold on the backward sections of the town proletariat, on broad sections of the semi-proletariat, and on the mass of the peasantry? Because of the ignorance of the people, replies the bourgeois progressist, the radical or the bourgeois materialist. And so: “Down with religion and long live atheism; the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!” The Marxist says that this is not true, that it is a superficial view, the view of narrow bourgeois uplifters.” – Lenin, “The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion“.

From your own quote this highlights from the horses mouth what you describe as conventional secularism. Lenin adopts a position of neutrality regarding religion in the context of this public affair of the workers strike, to not create divisions by pushing particular atheist propaganda. And as i mentioned before this comes from marxs analysis of religion. I am however aware that within the soviet union and its history there was violence directed towards the religious. Im fairly ignorant on the history you may be able to fill me in-i find some sources difficult to trust the original subject matter is a prime example. However ill reiterate the point that your conclusion holds Marxist Leninism as the culprit, you will have to show how the theory and philosophy is not "conventionally secular".

"The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil...there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy." Albert Einstein

Edit: Note: Apologies to the long delay in response as i've been kind of busy this week and i was going to post yesterday but unfortunately when i hit the submit button i found out that i had been logged out. It's so frustrating when that happens

theyounghistorian77 wrote:Well nevermind the actual point of the passage which is that Stalin displayed a fanaticism or Quasi-fanaticism reminiscent of that displayed by extreme religious types. (the phrase "Semi-islamic" in reference of the zeal of the fundamentalists of that religion have) And who is to say that 18th century English Gentlemen weren't devoutly obsessed as much as a clergyman was to his faith by the things that interested them, being religion or otherwise? Of course it was not that it opposed religion and the concept of an afterlife. But in every other respect it Marxism-Leninism resembled a religion. It elevated it's greatest figures, usually the leaders, to a godlike status. And at the same time as this it was not uncommon to have Marx and Engels proclaimed as in effect, Prophets heralding the future dawn of a new age. Perhaps you missed Stalin's own observations, that his regime exhibited a "sort of military-religious order". Well given the way his regime acted i do believe there is good enough case to put weight upon his own words there

PAB wrote:The reason i do not agree is regards the fact that i think you misrepresent Marxist-leninism with Stalinism and its effects. Your making a hasty generalisation .

Er no. Lenin is the founder of the "form of Communism" witnessed in Russia and as the Founder of Soviet Communism. We are dealing with a man that established in Russia the one-party state, a new secret police and prisons system and system of terror which was even more brutal and unforgiving than even what had occurred under the Tsars (And that was bad enough) and a violent socialist elitism and disdain for the Working classes that was shared consistently throughout the entire History of the Soviet Union. All of which advocated by Lenin well before the 1917 Revolutions. And again Stalin was Lenin's logical political successor. In terms of these examples above there is very little deviation between what Lenin advocated and what Stalin put into practice. So the effects of Stalinism, the murder and the Totalitarianism do stem from the Marxism-Lenninism that underpins its philosophy.

PAB wrote:From my perspective it is not Marxism-Leninism that resembles a religion but its particular treatment under certain regimes and conditions that rendered it "cult -like".

Under "Certain regimes"? And this would obviously exclude the regime of Lenin himself right? In which case the observations of Bertrand Russel ought to suffice, here he is writing in1920 but i recommend you read the whole book:

I cannot share the hopes of the Bolsheviks any more than those of the Egyptian anchorites; I regard both as tragic delusions, destined to bring upon the world centuries of darkness and futile violence. The principles of the Sermon on the Mount are admirable, but their effect upon average human nature was very different from what was intended. Those who followed Christ did not learn to love their enemies or to turn the other cheek. They learned instead to use the Inquisition and the stake, to subject the human intellect to the yoke of an ignorant and intolerant priesthood, to degrade art and extinguish science for a thousand years. These were the inevitable results, not of the teaching, but of fanatical belief in the teaching. The hopes which inspire Communism are, in the main, as admirable as those instilled by the Sermon on the Mount, but they are held as fanatically, and are likely to do as much harm. Cruelty lurks in our instincts, and fanaticism is a camouflage for cruelty. Fanatics are seldom genuinely humane, and those who sincerely dread cruelty will be slow to adopt a fanatical creed. I do not know whether Bolshevism can be prevented from acquiring universal power. But even if it cannot, I am persuaded that those who stand out against it, not from love of ancient injustice, but in the name of the free spirit of Man, will be the bearers of the seeds of progress, from which, when the world's gestation is accomplished, new life will be born. The war has left throughout Europe a mood of disillusionment and despair which calls aloud for a new religion, as the only force capable of giving men the energy to live vigorously. Bolshevism has supplied the new religion. - Bertrand Russel, "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism", p15-17.

Indeed it was this very sort of religious-esque fanaticism in that "the fundamental beliefs of our leader (and the prophets of our leader) are never that greatly wrong" and that "this leader is taking us on a path to the utopia right at the end of time which (would justify any crimes needed in order to reach it)" and given the fact that he was, again, the founding father of the USSR (to use another analogy Marx and Engels are Old Testament, Lenin is New Testament). A Lenin cult was an inevitability, and even if he ever claimed to ever oppose one he still set up the conditions that allowed for it. On this there is a nice article by Nina Tumarkin in "Russian Review. Vol. 40, No. 1 (Jan., 1981), pp. 35-46."

PAB wrote:Are you implying that Marxist-Leninism is therefore for a atheist state; as in suppressing religious beliefs and putting forward atheist ideas as described above ?

"When the Bolsheviks came into power in 1917, they made this defiant and dogmatic atheism the basis of their action" - Sydney Webb, "Soviet Communism: Social trends in soviet communism", p1006.

I'm amazed that you're explicitly denying this uncontested fact that when Lenin came into power he oversaw the development of the first state to have an ideological objective to get rid of religion for good, and replace it with what they term in Russian "Gosateizm". So yes Marxist-Leninism is therefore for a atheist state; as in suppressing religious beliefs and putting forward atheist ideas.

PAB wrote:Your quote from Lenin ill re-quote:

“It is the duty of a Marxist to place the success of the strike movement above everything else, vigorously to counteract the division of the workers in this struggle into atheists and Christians, vigorously to oppose any such division. Atheist propaganda in such circumstances may be both unnecessary and harmful—not from the philistine fear of scaring away the backward sections, of losing a seat in the elections, and so on, but out of consideration for the real progress of the class struggle, which in the conditions of modern capitalist society will convert Christian workers to Social-Democracy and to atheism a hundred times better than bald atheist propaganda. [...] Why does religion retain its hold on the backward sections of the town proletariat, on broad sections of the semi-proletariat, and on the mass of the peasantry? Because of the ignorance of the people, replies the bourgeois progressist, the radical or the bourgeois materialist. And so: “Down with religion and long live atheism; the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!” The Marxist says that this is not true, that it is a superficial view, the view of narrow bourgeois uplifters.” – Lenin, “The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion“.

From your own quote this highlights from the horses mouth what you describe as conventional secularism.

Haven't i mentioned weight on words enough times in this forum? I could easily quote Hitler advocating for peace but that doesn't necessarily mean he believed in the concept. You judge a historical figure by his actions, not his words and in this case you're putting far too much weight upon singular phrases. Lenin was talking about how to win over the masses here to his ideology. In the context of your usage of it; So what? And of course these masses in were in Russia overwhelmingly Christian (Orthodox) in reality. When you're putting forth an ideology that has an objective to completely get rid of religion for good via the means of persecution, than such atheist propaganda would indeed be harmful and dangerous to the movement. Other means are necessary to win them over. So Lenin here discussing his propaganda tactics is only stating the obvious and nothing more. And it doesn't say about what he did in practice. So no Lenin did not advocate a position of neutrality regarding religion and the state but rather quite the opposite in his promoting of Atheism and not guaranteeing Religious expression which explains the "violence directed towards the religious" as you describe. That very violence is not born out of the same form of secularism that i and the overwhelming majority of secularists hold.

"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith

theyounghistorian77 wrote:Er no. Lenin is the founder of the "form of Communism" witnessed in Russia and as the Founder of Soviet Communism. We are dealing with a man that established in Russia the one-party state, a new secret police and prisons system and system of terror which was even more brutal and unforgiving than even what had occurred under the Tsars (And that was bad enough) and a violent socialist elitism and disdain for the Working classes that was shared consistently throughout the entire History of the Soviet Union. All of which advocated by Lenin well before the 1917 Revolutions.And again Stalin was Lenin's logical political successor. In terms of these examples above there is very little deviation between what Lenin advocated and what Stalin put into practice. So the effects of Stalinism, the murder and the Totalitarianism do stem from the Marxism-Lenninism that underpins its philosophy.

I'm intrigued. Am i correct in concluding that what you are asserting is that : not only did Lenin lead to Stalin but the political theory and philosophy of Lenin i.e. (Leninism) naturally produced stalinism ? "Logical political successor".

Additionally why then was Trotsky not a "logical Political Successor" to Lenin ? (I'm under the impression that it was due to Stalin's consolidation of bureaucratic power within the party which lead to Stalin's succession, something that Lenin was attempting to tackle before his death)

Could you please provide some evidence of your assertions. (Dropping links to books (especially ones which produce 404 errors) is akin to the intellectual integrity of Christians dropping the bible as proof of gods existence).

What did Lenin advocate before 1917 that was faithfully carried out by Stalin exactly ?

theyounghistorian77 wrote:Under "Certain regimes"? And this would obviously exclude the regime of Lenin himself right? In which case the observations of Bertrand Russel ought to suffice, here he is writing in1920 but i recommend you read the whole book:

I cannot share the hopes of the Bolsheviks any more than those of the Egyptian anchorites; I regard both as tragic delusions, destined to bring upon the world centuries of darkness and futile violence. The principles of the Sermon on the Mount are admirable, but their effect upon average human nature was very different from what was intended. Those who followed Christ did not learn to love their enemies or to turn the other cheek. They learned instead to use the Inquisition and the stake, to subject the human intellect to the yoke of an ignorant and intolerant priesthood, to degrade art and extinguish science for a thousand years. These were the inevitable results, not of the teaching, but of fanatical belief in the teaching. The hopes which inspire Communism are, in the main, as admirable as those instilled by the Sermon on the Mount, but they are held as fanatically, and are likely to do as much harm. Cruelty lurks in our instincts, and fanaticism is a camouflage for cruelty. Fanatics are seldom genuinely humane, and those who sincerely dread cruelty will be slow to adopt a fanatical creed. I do not know whether Bolshevism can be prevented from acquiring universal power. But even if it cannot, I am persuaded that those who stand out against it, not from love of ancient injustice, but in the name of the free spirit of Man, will be the bearers of the seeds of progress, from which, when the world's gestation is accomplished, new life will be born. The war has left throughout Europe a mood of disillusionment and despair which calls aloud for a new religion, as the only force capable of giving men the energy to live vigorously. Bolshevism has supplied the new religion. - Bertrand Russel, "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism", p15-17.

I wasn't aware of this book, i will give it a read. I'm vaguely familiar with Russels political views and criticism regarding fascism and communism only from in praise of idleness (..i think....wasn't overly impressed by his reasoning though).

Im not sure what your trying to demonstrate via this quote. What exactly does the quote suffice. You are supporting your claim with another claim. "Bolshevism has supplied the new religion.".What it seems to be saying is communism is a good idea. But "fanatical belief" in teachings in this context Leninism / Bolshevism is bad or Bolshevism is a version of communism that promotes a fanatical belief. And therefore takes a form similar to religion.

If it implies that Leninism/ Bolshevism is fanatical. I don't think this is exactly true especially not prior to 1917 and prior to Stalinism. Bolsheviks constantly debated and changed their position.

Again i have to ask for evidence, (maybe Russell details it in his book he appears to go through Marxist theory in the second half.)Leninism i.e. the theoretical and philosophical contributions to Marxism does not to my knowledge promote belief or fanaticism in Marxism, communism or its own contributions.

As for the period of time that Lenin was premier, or from 1917 to 1924, i'm not aware of anything that caused Marxist-leninsm to become cult like or religious like. But its not impossible. My main contention is that Marxist-leninism (a political philosophy/ theory) is not inherently or naturally religious or cult like in the way you appear to present it. But rather it is political regimes that have treated it as one. But if im incorrect and there is something inherently cultish about marxist-leninism please point it out.

theyounghistorian77 wrote:Indeed it was this very sort of religious-esque fanaticism in that "the fundamental beliefs of our leader (and the prophets of our leader) are never that greatly wrong" and that "this leader is taking us on a path to the utopia right at the end of time which (would justify any crimes needed in order to reach it)" and given the fact that he was, again, the founding father of the USSR (to use another analogy Marx and Engels are Old Testament, Lenin is New Testament). A Lenin cult was an inevitability, and even if he ever claimed to ever oppose one he still set up the conditions that allowed for it. On this there is a nice article by Nina Tumarkin in "Russian Review. Vol. 40, No. 1 (Jan., 1981), pp. 35-46."

Who do these quotes belong to ? And how are they exactly a product of marxist - Leninism.

If a Lenin cult was an inevitability due to the conditions he set up, what were they ? And how does this related to the theory of Marxist-leninism does this theory contain beliefs that set up cult worship of Lenin as an inevitability ?

Again you have dropped a book, im sure its very good though. If that particular preview page that is linked is relevant you will have to enlighten me.

theyounghistorian77 wrote:

"When the Bolsheviks came into power in 1917, they made this defiant and dogmatic atheism the basis of their action" - Sydney Webb, "Soviet Communism: Social trends in soviet communism", p1006.

I don't think atheism was the basis of their action, do you ?, i think they would have been more concerned with the decrees they issued, capitalists and the monarchy, as well as the impending conflict which resulted in civil war (which via the Marxist understanding of the state and lessons from history , french revolution and paris commune of 1871, was already expected). But even if we take this statement as true, how did this action of the Bolsheviks flow from Marxist Leninism ? If anything it would have been contradictory to the theory regrading religion. As it was and is thought that the basis for eradicating religion is the socialist transformation of society which will have the consequence of reducing the need for religion in consoling suffering.

(Ill put this quote back into context regarding the party and the state soon enough,regarding propaganda of atheism nothings wrong with that and propaganda does not = persecution and violence on the contrary it smells of stimulating debate and education. Let us put this quote back into context:

Our propaganda necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.....the publication of the appropriate scientific literature, which the autocratic feudal government has hitherto strictly forbidden and persecuted, must now form one of the fields of our Party work. We shall now probably have to follow the advice Engels once gave to the German Socialists: to translate and widely disseminate the literature of the eighteenth-century French Enlighteners and atheists

Lenin is not even talking about propagating strictly Marxist propaganda on atheism (so much for the fanaticism), he is advocating publishing works by others from the scientific communities and philosophical backgrounds as well as old 18th Century thinkers, which had been suppressed by Tzarism in Russia. The equivalent would be if today the new wave of atheism had been suppressed and the published works by Dawkins and Hitchens had been successfully suppressed. Then me advocating that my political party i.e. the labour party should re publish them.

I'm amazed that you're explicitly denying this uncontested fact that when Lenin came into power he oversaw the development of the first state to have an ideological objective to get rid of religion for good, and replace it with what they term in Russian "Gosateizm". So yes Marxist-Leninism is therefore for a atheist state; as in suppressing religious beliefs and putting forward atheist ideas.

Religion must be declared a private affair. In these words socialists usually express their attitude towards religion. But the meaning of these words should be accurately defined to prevent any misunderstanding. We demand that religion be held a private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can we consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned. Religion must be of no concern to the state, and religious societies must have no connection with governmental authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. Even the bare mention of a citizen’s religion in official documents should unquestionably be eliminated. No subsidies should be granted to the established church nor state allowances made to ecclesiastical and religious societies. These should become absolutely free associations of like-minded citizens, associations independent of the state. Only the complete fulfilment of these demands can put an end to the shameful and accursed past when the church lived in feudal dependence on the state, and Russian citizens lived in feudal dependence on the established church, when medieval, inquisitorial laws (to this day remaining in our criminal codes and on our statute-books) were in existence and were applied, persecuting men for their belief or disbelief, violating men’s consciences, and linking cosy government jobs and government-derived incomes with the dispensation of this or that dope by the established church. Complete separation of Church and State is what the socialist proletariat demands of the modern state and the modern church.

Regarding the state this is completely secular and non-violent. However the matter of confusion, is regarding the party, which promotes atheism. Note that Lenin doesn't exclude theists from the party nor does he promote violence or persecution to them. The tricky part is the one party state. If only the bolshevik communist party which adheres to atheism is the sole possessor of the state then that fundamentally makes it a state that incorporates atheist ideology...(this opens up a whole new side topic regarding the one party state and if it is a fundamental part of marxist-leninism). So Marxist - Leninism is (for their party) to be atheistic - and necessarily so out of its philosophical political theory, i.e.Marxism and dialectical materialism. And, are not for the state to be suppressive of religious beliefs for the same reason (i.e. from Marxism and dialectical materialism) Lenin argues that you cant simply convert the majority of theists to atheists with propaganda. In the real world most Marxist Leninist's adhere to this view point, not violent suppression of religion, i can confirm that personally as a Marxist Leninist (But maybe this is all just a part of my cult worship of Lenin )

Haven't i mentioned weight on words enough times in this forum? I could easily quote Hitler advocating for peace but that doesn't necessarily mean he believed in the concept. You judge a historical figure by his actions, not his words and in this case you're putting far too much weight upon singular phrases. Lenin was talking about how to win over the masses here to his ideology. In the context of your usage of it; So what? And of course these masses in were in Russia overwhelmingly Christian (Orthodox) in reality. When you're putting forth an ideology that has an objective to completely get rid of religion for good via the means of persecution, than such atheist propaganda would indeed be harmful and dangerous to the movement. Other means are necessary to win them over. So Lenin here discussing his propaganda tactics is only stating the obvious and nothing more. And it doesn't say about what he did in practice. So no Lenin did not advocate a position of neutrality regarding religion and the state but rather quite the opposite in his promoting of Atheism and not guaranteeing Religious expression which explains the "violence directed towards the religious" as you describe. That very violence is not born out of the same form of secularism that i and the overwhelming majority of secularists hold.

I judge a historical figure by both actions and words, by both their practical conduct and their ideas. As for Lenin i dont hold him as a saint, Ive previously mentioned im lacking in my knowledge of the history of the Russian revolution, and so their are many things which are labeled in my mental larder for "to be researched". I.e. the ban on factions in the bolshevik party, was it necessary, was it contrived was lenin forming a dictatorship [To be researched] but im of the opinion that if Lenin did not do it for necessary reasons than that was a huge mistake.

But lets return to the matter at hand. We should in this particular case be placing weight on words i.e. the contributions to political theory which makes up Marxism-Leninism.For example it is possible that Lenin deviated from his own theory, that in his actions he acted in contradiction with what is Marxist-leninism. So if as you state Lenin and the Bolsheviks adhering to "Marxist -Leninism" set out in 1917 with atheism as the basis of their action then especially in a violent manner...that would be contradictory with Marxist Leninism. With Lenin as premier in 1918 the Soviet union officially Secularized the state. Church separated from state, Freedom of religion or lack of religion, Religion was limited to private lives , removed from the schools and "places of instruction". So i would argue based on whati have found that not only did Lenin put forward a neutral position of religion and the state but he carried it out. He in effect did guarantee religious freedom at least in this legal form. Maybe he suppressed it in another form ? As for the violence towards religion i dont think it was born out of secularism but i don't see any evidence to support the idea that it was born from marxist Leninism. It may have been a misinterpretation and a form of extremism, especially regarding the point that religion is used by the ruling classes- i.e. A conclusion that killing religious leaders and followers strengthens success for the continued success of the revolution...[To be researched ] But saying this, im not aware of lenin advocating violence towards religion, and to repeat, it is not a part of the theoretical contribution to marxism that is otherwise known as marxist-leninism.

"The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil...there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy." Albert Einstein

theyounghistorian77 wrote:Er no. Lenin is the founder of the "form of Communism" witnessed in Russia and as the Founder of Soviet Communism. We are dealing with a man that established in Russia the one-party state, a new secret police and prisons system and system of terror which was even more brutal and unforgiving than even what had occurred under the Tsars (And that was bad enough) and a violent socialist elitism and disdain for the Working classes that was shared consistently throughout the entire History of the Soviet Union. All of which advocated by Lenin well before the 1917 Revolutions.And again Stalin was Lenin's logical political successor. In terms of these examples above there is very little deviation between what Lenin advocated and what Stalin put into practice. So the effects of Stalinism, the murder and the Totalitarianism do stem from the Marxism-Lenninism that underpins its philosophy.

PAB wrote:I'm intrigued. Am i correct in concluding that what you are asserting is that : not only did Lenin lead to Stalin but the political theory and philosophy of Lenin i.e. (Leninism) naturally produced stalinism ? "Logical political successor".

It's been well documented that Lenin appreciated Stalin rather deeply and that he nurtured him and overall favoured him over all his main rivals in his party. And that After the 1920s Stalin justified what he did by using what Lenin had said previously.

PAB wrote:Additionally why then was Trotsky not a "logical Political Successor" to Lenin ? (I'm under the impression that it was due to Stalin's consolidation of bureaucratic power within the party which lead to Stalin's succession, something that Lenin was attempting to tackle before his death)

There is no documentary sources that suggests Lenin was looking to another successor. Any annoyance Lenin had with Stalin was down to his personal confrontation with Lenin's wife, Nadezhda Krupskaya. He may have demanded apologies but Lenin never advocated removing Stalin from either the Politburo or Central committee.

PAB wrote:Could you please provide some evidence of your assertions. (Dropping links to books (especially ones which produce 404 errors) is akin to the intellectual integrity of Christians dropping the bible as proof of gods existence).

Well i'm sorry that i cannot see if the link to the book works for you on your own browser when i was typing that response when the very same link works for me and still does because that's not my fault. The "Book" in question is not a piece of mostly fiction or hagiography or fable like the Bible is but instead a scholarly work. It's called "Lenin, Stalin and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe" by Robert Gellately and the reason why i've brought it up (Twice) is because it represents most of my thinking on the matter at more length than i shall type here. So i find you comparing me to a creationist to be quite absurd and i'm certainly not trying to be as dishonest as a creationist always is.

And i don't know if this works for you, but here is the Google books preview instead, with much of what i will say and what i have already said contained within! Please feel free to follow up the footnotes because i'm short of time to write everything out to you! if this post looks a little bit rushed, than that's because it is!

PAB wrote:What did Lenin advocate before 1917 that was faithfully carried out by Stalin exactly?

As i have already mentioned: the one-party state, a new secret police and prisons system and system of terror which was even more brutal and unforgiving than even what had occurred under the Tsars (And that was bad enough) and a violent socialist elitism and disdain for the Working classes that was shared consistently throughout the entire History of the Soviet Union. If you believe that the Bolshevik barbarity started with Stalin than you are sorely mistaken. Hitherto Secret documents at the archive of institute of Marxism-Leninism are enough to reveal Lenin's taste for revolutionary atrocities, such as this well known telegram Lenin wrote to his Comrades at Penza on 11 August 1918:

"The Rising of the Five Kulak regions must be met with merciless repression ... There's need to make an example. 1) Hang not less than 100 kulaks, rich ones, bloodsuckers ... 2) Publish their names. 3) Take all their food away. 4) Pick hostages according to yesterdays telegram. Do everything so that the people will see, tremble, and groan for miles and miles around ... PS. Search out some hard people. [Signed] Lenin"

---

theyounghistorian77 wrote:Under "Certain regimes"? And this would obviously exclude the regime of Lenin himself right? In which case the observations of Bertrand Russel ought to suffice, here he is writing in1920 but i recommend you read the whole book:

I cannot share the hopes of the Bolsheviks any more than those of the Egyptian anchorites; I regard both as tragic delusions, destined to bring upon the world centuries of darkness and futile violence. The principles of the Sermon on the Mount are admirable, but their effect upon average human nature was very different from what was intended. Those who followed Christ did not learn to love their enemies or to turn the other cheek. They learned instead to use the Inquisition and the stake, to subject the human intellect to the yoke of an ignorant and intolerant priesthood, to degrade art and extinguish science for a thousand years. These were the inevitable results, not of the teaching, but of fanatical belief in the teaching. The hopes which inspire Communism are, in the main, as admirable as those instilled by the Sermon on the Mount, but they are held as fanatically, and are likely to do as much harm. Cruelty lurks in our instincts, and fanaticism is a camouflage for cruelty. Fanatics are seldom genuinely humane, and those who sincerely dread cruelty will be slow to adopt a fanatical creed. I do not know whether Bolshevism can be prevented from acquiring universal power. But even if it cannot, I am persuaded that those who stand out against it, not from love of ancient injustice, but in the name of the free spirit of Man, will be the bearers of the seeds of progress, from which, when the world's gestation is accomplished, new life will be born. The war has left throughout Europe a mood of disillusionment and despair which calls aloud for a new religion, as the only force capable of giving men the energy to live vigorously. Bolshevism has supplied the new religion. - Bertrand Russel, "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism", p15-17.

PAB wrote:What it seems to be saying is communism is a good idea. But "fanatical belief" in teachings in this context Leninism / Bolshevism is bad or Bolshevism is a version of communism that promotes a fanatical belief. And therefore takes a form similar to religion.

Well done!

PAB wrote:If it implies that Leninism/ Bolshevism is fanatical. I don't think this is exactly true especially not prior to 1917 and prior to Stalinism. Bolsheviks constantly debated and changed their position.

You are only partially right that prior to Lenin taking over the Communist movement in Russia and before he was widely known. Marxists could legitimately agree and disagree with each other in the normal realms of debate (This stemming from the most part because Marx and Engels apparently only gave vague notions of what the actual Communist and socialist societies would look like). However i would stress the authoritarians amongst the Marxists in the form of Lenin and his Bolsheviks won out of this debate by being the first of the Marxists to take control of a nation, and what was done was done.

PAB wrote:Leninism i.e. the theoretical and philosophical contributions to Marxism does not to my knowledge promote belief or fanaticism in Marxism, communism or its own contributions.

Even if this was true: There still remains the difference between what a "Theory" is, and what a "Practice" is

PAB wrote:As for the period of time that Lenin was premier, or from 1917 to 1924, i'm not aware of anything that caused Marxist-leninsm to become cult like or religious like. But its not impossible. My main contention is that Marxist-leninism (a political philosophy/ theory) is not inherently or naturally religious or cult like in the way you appear to present it. But rather it is political regimes that have treated it as one. But if im incorrect and there is something inherently cultish about marxist-leninism please point it out.

I think i already have through the effects of Lenin's dictatorship And that i am talking to a brick wall . Again:

theyounghistorian77 wrote: Indeed it was this very sort of religious-esque fanaticism in that "the fundamental beliefs of our leader (and the prophets of our leader) are never that greatly wrong" and that "this leader is taking us on a path to the utopia right at the end of time (which would justify any crimes needed in order to reach it)" and given the fact that he was, again, the founding father of the USSR (to use another analogy Marx and Engels are Old Testament, Lenin is New Testament). A Lenin cult was an inevitability, and even if he ever claimed to ever oppose one he still set up the conditions that allowed for it.

PAB wrote:Who do these quotes belong to ? And how are they exactly a product of marxist - Leninism.

These "quotes" are summations of the effects of Lenin's dictatorship. And what Lenin did in his dictatorship was to put his own ideology into practice. From my perspective i find it quite difficult to Argue Lenin didn't put his ideology into practice during his dictatorship.

PAB wrote:If a Lenin cult was an inevitability due to the conditions he set up, what were they? And how does this related to the theory of Marxist-leninism does this theory contain beliefs that set up cult worship of Lenin as an inevitability ?

---

theyounghistorian77 wrote:

"When the Bolsheviks came into power in 1917, they made this defiant and dogmatic atheism the basis of their action" - Sydney Webb, "Soviet Communism: Social trends in soviet communism", p1006.

PAB wrote:I don't think atheism was the basis of their action, do you ?

The quote was to reiterate the point that Lenin was in favour of setting up an Atheist state, as was the quotation of Lenin saying "Our propaganda necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism". That's all it was, and on this it was the basis of their action. In terms of say, "Prodrazvyorstka" which i used in the blogpost for example than no! It clearly wasn't the basis of his actions.

PAB wrote:I think they would have been more concerned with the decrees they issued, capitalists and the monarchy, as well as the impending conflict which resulted in civil war (which via the Marxist understanding of the state and lessons from history , french revolution and paris commune of 1871, was already expected). But even if we take this statement as true, how did this action of the Bolsheviks flow from Marxist Leninism ? If anything it would have been contradictory to the theory regrading religion. As it was and is thought that the basis for eradicating religion is the socialist transformation of society which will have the consequence of reducing the need for religion in consoling suffering.

Since it seems you didn't read the following from my blogpost, I'll repeat myself again:

Theyounghistorian77 wrote:

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics. – Marx, “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right” ,Introduction.

To put this quote in more contemporary language: Life, to paraphrase Hobbes, was “nasty, brutish and short” but it’s all OK because your loving creator loves you and will reward you for all of your hard work and suffering with a luxurious afterlife. Actually Marx says this “love” is a false love and all it really is, is as a painkiller, which allows the suffering proletarian to get through his working week. This belief in this false love (because the creator doesn’t exist) fails to address the real cause of suffering which Marx believed was down to the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. So on this basis religion needs to be critiqued so that the false love can be exposed and dispelled from amongst the proletariat, and once this happens the path towards the inevitable socialist revolution (or socialist society) can then take place.

Again, Marx's argument is that religion needs to be critiqued so that the "false love" it produces can be exposed and dispelled from amongst the proletariat, and once this happens the path towards the inevitable socialist revolution (or socialist society) can then take place. The divergence here (if there is one) is that Lenin wished to impose the destruction of religion by the force of the State. Well done for strawmanning me!

PAB wrote:Lenin is not even talking about propagating strictly Marxist propaganda on atheism (so much for the fanaticism), he is advocating publishing works by others from the scientific communities and philosophical backgrounds as well as old 18th Century thinkers, which had been suppressed by Tzarism in Russia. The equivalent would be if today the new wave of atheism had been suppressed and the published works by Dawkins and Hitchens had been successfully suppressed. Then me advocating that my political party i.e. the labour party should re publish them.

There's an amusing set up in the Movie "Iron Sky" where the Moon Nazis play Charlie Chaplain's "The Great dictator" as if it were something that glorifies their ideology when in fact of course it does the complete opposite, as one of the Moon Nazis found out when she went to an Earth Cinema. I bring this up because, although fictional, it's good grounded satire in that it does still tell you something about how dictatorships work when it comes to the "selective" preservation and dissemination of such cultural artifacts. Sure Lenin would have these works published but he would have them published and disseminated through the ideological prisms of Marxism-Leninism and have them construed to fit them praising or complimenting his own ideas. To put it in more loose phraseology a Teacher teaching his/her students would present these works with the lesson being "See, these works are glorifying and adding weight to our ideas on ....". Something else you need to learn, "Inference". Sometimes a text can tell you more than just what the words say contained within.

theyounghistorian77 wrote:I'm amazed that you're explicitly denying this uncontested fact that when Lenin came into power he oversaw the development of the first state to have an ideological objective to get rid of religion for good, and replace it with what they term in Russian "Gosateizm". So yes Marxist-Leninism is therefore for a atheist state; as in suppressing religious beliefs and putting forward atheist ideas.

Religion must be declared a private affair. In these words socialists usually express their attitude towards religion. But the meaning of these words should be accurately defined to prevent any misunderstanding. We demand that religion be held a private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can we consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned. Religion must be of no concern to the state, and religious societies must have no connection with governmental authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. Even the bare mention of a citizen’s religion in official documents should unquestionably be eliminated. No subsidies should be granted to the established church nor state allowances made to ecclesiastical and religious societies. These should become absolutely free associations of like-minded citizens, associations independent of the state. Only the complete fulfilment of these demands can put an end to the shameful and accursed past when the church lived in feudal dependence on the state, and Russian citizens lived in feudal dependence on the established church, when medieval, inquisitorial laws (to this day remaining in our criminal codes and on our statute-books) were in existence and were applied, persecuting men for their belief or disbelief, violating men’s consciences, and linking cosy government jobs and government-derived incomes with the dispensation of this or that dope by the established church. Complete separation of Church and State is what the socialist proletariat demands of the modern state and the modern church.

PAB wrote:Regarding the state this is completely secular and non-violent. However the matter of confusion, is regarding the party, which promotes atheism. Note that Lenin doesn't exclude theists from the party nor does he promote violence or persecution to them.

And in the political context, throughout the period between the 1905 (and before this too) and the final October revolution the Orthodox clergy stratified itself and found a wide range of political sympathies ranging not only to those who still regarded the Tsar in high esteem but also priests who interpreted their "Gods mission" in a highly socialistic manner. I'll offer one example of the latter. On March 1917 the "All Russian union of Democratic Orthodox clergy and laity" was founded. It's slogan "Christianity is on the side of labour, not on the side of violence and exploitation". Noting this would it not make sense for a socialist leader like Lenin to try and tap into such movements to build your base? Again this doesn't say what Lenin did after the revolution. Well let's see about that. The "decree on the land" passed at the 2nd congress of the Soviets and the subsequent decree on Land committees stripped the land which belonged to aforementioned churches and monasteries. When Lenin nationalized the banks he caused the loss of accounts of the accounts held by the clergy. Now you might think that this was rather mild, but it only got worse from there. And again. Religion a "Private matter"? I do not think History shows out the Bolsheviks believed in such a thing. Be it Marxism or Marxism-leninism what entails in dialectical materialism is a permanent extinction of religion within the transition between a socialist to a Communist society. It certainly does not entail the survival of religion as we know it today.

PAB wrote:The tricky part is the one party state. If only the bolshevik communist party which adheres to atheism is the sole possessor of the state then that fundamentally makes it a state that incorporates atheist ideology

Well done for making my own argument for me. As the numbers bear out in Bob Altemeyer who has been already quoted a conventional secularism would not fundamentally make it so that a conventional secular state "fundamentally incorporates atheist ideology." as it's essence. But rather a much more simplistic neutrality. Not a state biased towards Atheism as it was with Lenin as you've just admitted.

Haven't i mentioned weight on words enough times in this forum? I could easily quote Hitler advocating for peace but that doesn't necessarily mean he believed in the concept. You judge a historical figure by his actions, not his words and in this case you're putting far too much weight upon singular phrases. Lenin was talking about how to win over the masses here to his ideology. In the context of your usage of it; So what? And of course these masses in were in Russia overwhelmingly Christian (Orthodox) in reality. When you're putting forth an ideology that has an objective to completely get rid of religion for good via the means of persecution, than such atheist propaganda would indeed be harmful and dangerous to the movement. Other means are necessary to win them over. So Lenin here discussing his propaganda tactics is only stating the obvious and nothing more. And it doesn't say about what he did in practice. So no Lenin did not advocate a position of neutrality regarding religion and the state but rather quite the opposite in his promoting of Atheism and not guaranteeing Religious expression which explains the "violence directed towards the religious" as you describe. That very violence is not born out of the same form of secularism that i and the overwhelming majority of secularists hold.

PAB wrote:I judge a historical figure by both actions and words, by both their practical conduct and their ideas.

Oh dear and we have talked about this before. It seems to me that you don't believe this but it is absolutely true that Lenin was quite the Liar and deceiver, and he was able to "produce phrases of egregious political fudge". So we still have to read Lenin very carefully, like for example we must exhibit some skepticism of an idea we get from this Pravda article dated to June 1917 that in essence his use of Terror will be short lived (and somewhat softer than what actually happened). Here he uses the image of the French revolution and the Jacobins, who ruled through a reign of terror and compares Russia in 1917 to Revolutionary France in the 1790s:

"The Jacobins proclaimed enemies of the people those "promoting the schemes of the allied tyrants directed against the Republic". The Jacobins' example is instructive. It has not become obsolete to this day, except that it must be applied to the revolutionary class of the twentieth century, to the workers and semi-proletarians. To this class, the enemies of the people in the twentieth century are not the monarchs, but the landowners and capitalists as a class. [...] The "Jacobins" of the twentieth century would not guillotine the capitalists,to follow a good example does not mean copying it. It would be enough to arrest fifty to a hundred financial magnates and bigwigs, the chief knights of embezzlement and of robbery by the banks. It would be enough to arrest them for a few weeks to expose their frauds and show all exploited people "who needs the war"."

And again if you missed it, my point is that it is only when words (especially of politicians) of historical figures match deeds do we begin to put weight on them. So naturally i am still quite skeptical of what Lenin wrote in that Pravda article i quoted from, and so-far nothing has been quite done to rectify that. And as for the rest of your post, perhaps if you have a time traveling machine you would like to tell this to a Thomas Jefferson who was one of the founding fathers of the worlds first modern conventional secular state (much as this is denied by the Religious Right and David Barton). no sorry Lenin did not put forward a neutral position of religion and the state. And using the phrase "at least in this legal form" is like those hopelessly naive Western leftists who visited Potemkin villages in Stalinist Russia and reported back everything was OK when it wasn't. If you want to argue that the violence towards religion wasn't "born out of secularism" than that's another thing. But do not go around in the same breath suggesting Lenin's secularism and his justifications for it are exactly just like mine and most others. Because they are not. Period!

"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith

I am amazed, your reasoning on this forum is generally pretty good, but your putting in a poor performance here, you really must be very very busy.On the topic of busyness i think we should get back to basics, the debate on Lenin and Leninism itself we can debate separately we could move these arguments onto the history section, or politics. Let us be clear we are talking more specifically about Marxist - Leninism and atheism, secularism and religion (re: your original post). Hopefully this will refocus both of our precious time.

I'm challenging your statement

theyounghistorian77 wrote:So to conclude: Marxist-Leninist atheism (Or the Marxist-Leninist variant of secularism if you must insist) is different to conventional atheist or secularist thinking. When it is put into practice it has the ability to function like a as religion or like a quasi-religion. As exemplified in Stalin’s quote that his Bolshevism represented a “sort of military-religious order”

And im also challenging the point that Marxist -Leninism is

theyounghistorian77 wrote:an ideology that has an objective to completely get rid of religion for good via the means of persecution

or any notion of violent removal of religion. Marxism/ Marxist-Leninism certainly aims towards a society without religion however but this is fundamentally via changing society i.e. socialism which will reduce the need for religion and communism (higher stages of socialism) whereby religion would have withered away , become a thing of the past.

Wikipedia wrote:Marxism–Leninism is a communist ideology and political philosophy, officially based upon the theories of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin, that promotes the development and creation of an international communist society through the leadership of a vanguard party presiding over a revolutionary socialist state that represents a dictatorship of the proletariat.

The Marxist Internet Archive wrote:A label of Lenin's approach to Marxism at the beginning of the 20th-century, in a capitalist Russia emerging from feudalism. While Lenin considered himself only a Marxist, after his death his theory and practice was given the label of Marxism-Leninism, considered to be an overall evolution of Marxism in the "era of the proletarian revolution". Marxism-Leninism was the official political theory of the former Soviet state and was enforced throughout most of the former Eastern European socialist governments of the 20th-century.

the free dictionary wrote:the political and economic theories of Lenin which provided the guiding doctrine of the Soviet Union; the modification of Marxism by Lenin stressed that imperialism is the highest form of capitalism (which shifts the struggle from developed to underdeveloped countries)

So Marxist Leninism is something created after Lenin, and concerns predominately the theory/ideology/philosophy and the practice which follows from Lenin's contribution to Marxism.

First i will have to take you to school on Marxism, which evidently it seems you have little understanding of.Marxism does not hold that first it is necessary to challenge or get rid of religious ideas before you can have a socialist revolution or before you can have socialism you bust first abolish religion. It is in fact the opposite. (reality proves this, Marxists would stand with Christians, Muslims etc. on strikes on protests, not simply propagate atheism to them trying to convince them their is no god as a pre-requisite to achieving socialism).

Im sure you are aware that Marxism is a diverse body of thought it covers many topics but it is also diverse in respects to its original theorists Marx and Engles, who's ideas changed and developed. It wasn't one day Marx had an idea Engels agreed they wrote it out then went to bed. i.e. it is not a static monolith. Marx in his early days was more philosophically orientated a Hegelian with a materialist criticism of Hegelian philosophy and its idealist dialectics; the thought developed and changed.

To deal with the quote from "A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right":

What you have quoted is in fact best summed up with and put into context with

the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism. - A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

This text is not a political pamphlet it is a criticism of Hegelian philosophy. Marx is proposing that by criticizing religion you inevitably begin the first steps to criticizing the real world . i.e.

Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.

theyounghistorian77 wrote:Again, Marx's argument is that religion needs to be critiqued so that the "false love" it produces can be exposed and dispelled from amongst the proletariat, [and once this happens the path towards the inevitable socialist revolution (or socialist society) can then take place

No where does it say or imply this- please show your working .

To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Marx only makes the point that the call for people to abandon religious ideas i.e. atheism is a call for abandonment of a society that requires religion. And then that the critique of religion is in embryo the critique of society.

In terms of socialist revolution which is not mentioned, you can see the position of atheism. Atheism compared to religion for ordinary people is beneficial as it allows them to focus not on life after death but life now, instead of simply putting up with suffering in the real world and hoping for a better one once they die the education of people towards atheism encourages them to question their real conditions of existence and extinguishes mysticism and solutions after death. It does not mean that atheism is a prerequisite to achieving socialism . That 1st we educate people in atheism and remove religion - Then we proceed to changing society is incorrect. The essence of this text is philosophy and ideas, atheism makes way for real criticism (in a turn away from theology and magic) it therefore opens up the philosophy and ideas of how to change society i.e. socialist transformation.

And after all if Marx believed that atheism was essential for socialism why did he not focus on preaching atheism like some sort of Victorian Richard Dawkin's.

But we shouldn't place all our weight on the Marxist understanding of religion on this alone.

Marx sees religion as a social product (man makes religion ) in the German Ideology we get the following:

products of consciousness cannot be dissolved by mental criticism....but only by the practical overthrow of the actual social relations which gave rise to this idealistic humbug; that not criticism but revolution is the driving force of history, also of religion, of philosophy and all other types of theory.

The real, practical dissolution of these phrases, the removal of these notions from the consciousness of men, will, as we have already said, be effected by altered circumstances, not by theoretical deductions. For the mass of men, i.e., the proletariat, these theoretical notions do not exist and hence do not require to be dissolved, and if this mass ever had any theoretical notions, e.g., religion, these have now long been dissolved by circumstances.

Marx is confusing at the best of times, i know, but bare with me. From this we get the sense that 1. religion will be overcome only by revolution, the actual social relations which give rise to the idealism i.e. religion will need to be removed and fundamentally changed.2. It appears that when Marx does mention the proletariat and religion he seems not too fussed. I don't think he means all workers are atheists however.

But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”- The Communist Manifesto

It is the achievement and establishment of a communist society one which has abolished private property and class society that will also mean the abolition of religion. ....Due to ....religion being a product of society, and is sustained by class society i.e. opium for the suffering people.

The religious reflex of the real world can, in any case, only then finally vanish, when the practical relations of every-day life offer to man none but perfectly intelligible and reasonable relations with regard to his fellowmen and to Nature. - Capital Vol.1

(This refers to not simply religion however but idealist thought in general i think, fetishism of commodities etc.)

Let us look at Engles on this matter.

Engles in Anti-duhring wrote:when society, by taking possession of all means of production and using them on a planned basis, has freed itself and all its members from the bondage in which they are now held by these means of production which they themselves have produced but which confront them as an irresistible alien force, when therefore man no longer merely proposes, but also disposes — only then will the last alien force which is still reflected in religion vanish; and with it will also vanish the religious reflection itself, for the simple reason that then there will be nothing left to reflect.

Engles is arguing against Duhrings notions of having to abolish religion

Herr Dühring, however, cannot wait until religion dies this, its natural, death. He proceeds in more deep-rooted fashion. He out-Bismarcks Bismarck; he decrees sharper May laws [127] not merely against Catholicism, but against all religion whatsoever; he incites his gendarmes of the future against religion, and thereby helps it to martyrdom and a prolonged lease of life. Wherever we turn, we find specifically Prussian socialism.

Hopefully this is enough to prove that, for want of a better word , the "founding fathers" of Marxism i.e. scientific socialism understood that religion could not be removed by decree or by criticism but that it was necessary to change society to change the social product. This by the way is immediately obvious when you understand dialectical materialism- reality is not a product of ideas but ideas are the product of reality, this is expressed when they talk about religion being a reflex.

Bolsheviks and Leninism

So it is to some of the hero's of the Russian Revolution and their theory and ideology , their take on Marxism, that we now look for this violent persecution of religion.

Let us start with Bukharin, who according to him i would be a weak kneed communist as i believe that you can be a communist and believe in god (but not a Marxist and believe in god). Bukharin sees religion as incompatible with communism in theory and practice. So what does he propose...

Separation of the church from the state....Religion has become the private affair of every citizen. The Soviet Power rejects all thoughts of using the church in any way whatever as a means for strengthening the proletarian State.

Also the removal of the church and religion from schools. Bukharin also propose tackling religious propaganda in the home of children too...but no violence or persecution yet.

the separation of the church from the State and of the school from the church, and these changes have been almost painlessly achieved. It is enormously more difficult to fight the religious prejudices which are already deeply rooted in the consciousness of the masses, and which cling so stubbornly to life.

maybe this is where the violence lies ? But no...

In organized communist society, on the other hand, the realms of production and distribution will no longer contain any mysteries for the worker. Every worker will not merely perform his allotted portion of social work. He will in addition participate in the elaboration of the general plan of production, and will at least have clear ideas upon the matter. Throughout the entire mechanism of social production there will no longer be anything mysterious, incomprehensible, or unexpected, and there will therefore be no further place for mystical explanations or for superstition. Just as the joiner who has made a table knows perfectly well how the table came to exist and that he need not lift his eyes towards heaven in order to find its creator, so in communist society all the workers will clearly understand what they have produced with their collective energies and how they have produced it.

THE TRANSITION FROM SOCIALISM TO COMMUNISM, THE TRANSITION FROM THE SOCIETY WHICH MAKES AN END OF CAPITALISM TO THE SOCIETY WHICH IS COMPLETELY FREED FROM ALL TRACES OF CLASS DIVISION AND CLASS STRUGGLE, WILL BRING ABOUT THE NATURAL DEATH OF ALL RELIGION AND ALL SUPERSTITION.

(his caps not mine) We can see that Bukharin despite some of his slightly more radical views regarding communists in general and the party is not under any illusion that religion can and will be forcefully removed.

AH! but...

It is essential at the present time to wage with the utmost vigour the war against religious prejudices

And again no violence..

Our aims can be secured by the delivery of special lectures, by the holding of debates, and by the publication of suitable literature; also by the general diffusion of scientific knowledge, which slowly but surely undermines the authority of religion. An excellent weapon in the fight with the church was used recently in many parts of the republic when the shrines were opened to show the 'incorruptible' relics. This served to prove to the wide masses of the people, and precisely to those in whom religious faith was strongest, the base trickery upon which religion in general, and the creed of the Russian Orthodox church in particular, are grounded......the campaign against the backwardness of the masses in this matter of religion, must be conducted with patience and considerateness, as well as with energy and perseverance.

To thrust atheism upon the masses, and in conjunction therewith to interfere forcibly with religious practices and to make mock of the objects of popular reverence, would not assist but would hinder the campaign against religion.

We must fight the Church, not with force, but with conviction. The Church must be separated from the State. This means, the priests may continue to exist--but let them be supported by those who wish to purchase their poison, or who have some other interest in their continued existence.

The battle against religious prejudices, against the church with its higher orders and its “shepherds,” is a primary obligation of every revolutionary socialist.But this battle must be waged skillfully and carefully. The religious world outlook has been created over centuries and millennia. As long as there is social injustice, ignorance, and the dependence of man on the elements of nature and society, religion will exist in one form or another. The struggle must be ideological and in no instance should transgress these bounds. We communists would be philistines if we said that communism is not hostile to religion. We will never say this, for we have never been and will never be philistines and political mercenaries. But we would be committing a mass of the crudest errors if we stepped beyond the bounds of ideological battles and conflicts. People will object: and what about the separation of church and state?The separation of church and state delivers a cruel and irreparable blow to the church which ruled under tsarism. But in essence this is merely an act of social justice. We cannot show preference to Orthodoxy over Buddhism, Catholicism, or a whole number of other religions. The separation of church and state reduces the church to a free religious society which lives at its own discretion and on the means of its voluntary members. And only that. This measure signifies nothing else. It deprives the clergy of the economic might which it illegally enjoyed under tsarism, but this measure does not affect the freedom to choose a religious system. Our enemies often confuse this intention with others and present the separation of church and state as an attack on the freedom of religious expression. On the contrary, this measure, which removes one set of privileges, returns genuine freedom in the choice of religion. We fight against priests because of their counter- revolutionary activity, and not because they believe in God. We will conduct this struggle as long as the epoch of dictatorship continues. It is not our fault if the clergy ended up on the side of the “powerful of this world.”

We have already looked at Lenin. But if there is something essential missing please make it evident.

Let us deal with the first hurdles, before we try to run before we can walk.1. Marxism is neither violent towards religion nor does it propose persecution of the religious, it is fundamentally atheistic however and aims towards the abolition of religion via a communist society.2. Lenin's understanding of religion is Marxist3. Marxism-Leninism on matters of religion does not differ from marxism.4. Marxism is for a secular state .5. Marxism is for educating people out of religious ideas but with patient debate not force

(when i have presented evidence before you have written it off as some machevelian conspiracy, words only of manipulation. First if this is for some reason important to your argument evidence is needed, and second it shouldn't be important as like i have already explained it is the theory not the deeds which is fundamentally at issue here.)

edit 17:50 pm 02/05/13: There are some minor differences between Marxism and "conventional secularism" i.e. Marxism is for educating people out of religious ideas and undermining religious indoctrination where possible in moderation with patient debate not force and this would be to some degree might (but not necessarily) be helped by the state if it was under a Marxist government. But Marxism has more in common with modern secularism and atheism regarding religion and the state then their are differences as demonstrated by the quotes.

"The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil...there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy." Albert Einstein

How Socialists Fight Religion- Haven't read the article carefully and i am less familiar with this particular socialist organization, but evidences the lack of violence tendencies towards religion within marxist leninism and how it is contradictory to marxism and marxist leninism.

"The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil...there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy." Albert Einstein

Historical evidence will be needed but here i put forward my own assumptions, rather than just criticize and leave a vaccum.

Marxism and Marxist-Leninism is not for the persecution of violent abolition of religion. But is for fundamentally changing society into a classless society (communism) which would reduce religion into insignificance.

So what violence that occurred against religion in the soviet union is certainly not thrown up with either communism or marxism.

1. During revolution and the following civil war violence towards religion was directed towards the institutions and its leading figures i.e. priests for political reasons. The church had a deep connection with tzarism and the monarchy (after all the king is their by a god given appointment). And the state was far from secular . (Similar to this- what i am currently reading displayed an article from a vatican magazine during the spanish civil war which was a muliple answer questionaire which was loaded with why fascism is good and democratic, and why franco should win the war).

2. Religion and especially Russian orthodoxy was a reminder in a symbolic way of tzarism and under conditions of civil war between counter-revolutionary forces that wanted to restore tzarism, we can imagine some hostility arising.

3. Stalinism- The revolution became stagnant, stalin became supreme leader much like napoleon, and executed the remaining main bolsheviks. He pushed genuine repressive measures against religion itself which he would later claw back to use the church for his own benifits. They would later claim to have achieved socialism as an accomplishment of Stalin's idea of socialism in one country and keeping with the supposed logic religion should have been abolished....this may have led to increased pressure to eradicate religion.

4. The french revolution, should also be studied comparatively. This also saw major attacks on religion and attempts to wipe it out. Unfortunately Marxism was not yet in existence to be used as a scapegoat.

And thats what the claim appears to boil down to. The idea that marxism (leninism) is for an atheist state, for the violent removal of religion etc etc. Is not a part of serious academic or rational history of political science, it is the spew of ideological condemnation of marxism and communism. Once we can get over the assult on marxism and communism we can then undertake a serious examination of history.

"The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil...there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy." Albert Einstein